Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – it’s great when Christians lie about what their bible says about rape

The “armchair theologian” is quite the liar and of course I can’t post on his site since he doesn’t like being revealed. So I post my replies to his lies here.

This time he lies about what his bible says about rape and tries to make excuses.

“It would be an anachronism to assume a post 1960’s sexual revolution category of consent into this passage.  That said, even if you did it doesn’t do much for the judge who is using this law in old covenant Israel.  They will only have the presence or absence of any evidence corroborating claims that are being made after the fact and will primarily be focusing on adjudicating the sin of fornication, in which case rape would simply mean innocence on the part of the woman.”

of course, he just doesn’t mention the parts that don’t fit with his claims.

Yep, per the bible, raping someone only requires a fine as punishment. It’s always fun when christians try to add things to their bible that aren’t there to make it less horrific.

And, as always, it’s a shame how christians can’t show that anything was taken out of context or “cherry picked’ when they accuse others of doing that.

It’s hilarious how these frauds try to claim that only their interpretation is the “right” one and not one can agree with the next. No reason to believe any of them when they try to whitewash their bible.

Let’s look at Deut 22:

“¹³ Suppose a man marries a woman, but after going in to her, he dislikes her ¹⁴ and makes up charges against her, slandering her by saying, “I married this woman; but when I lay with her, I did not find evidence of her virginity.” ¹⁵ The father of the young woman and her mother shall then submit the evidence of the young woman’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. ¹⁶ The father of the young woman shall say to the elders: “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man but he dislikes her; ¹⁷ now he has made up charges against her, saying, ‘I did not find evidence of your daughter’s virginity.’ But here is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.” Then they shall spread out the cloth before the elders of the town. ¹⁸ The elders of that town shall take the man and punish him; ¹⁹ they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver (which they shall give to the young woman’s father) because he has slandered a virgin of Israel. She shall remain his wife; he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.”

So, here we have a woman who was lied about by her husband. She has evidence she’s a virgin, and isn’t killed by men, and the man is just fined. She has to remain his wife even though he lied about her.

“²⁰ If, however, this charge is true, that evidence of the young woman’s virginity was not found, ²¹ then they shall bring the young woman out to the entrance of her father’s house and the men of her town shall stone her to death, because she committed a disgraceful act in Israel by prostituting herself in her father’s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.”

Here a woman is murdered by men if she can’t show she’s a virgin. Now, anyone who actually knows female anatomy knows that women don’t always bleed after being penetrated. This is a way for men to commit murder. Nothing more.

^“22 If a man is caught lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman as well as the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.”

Adulterers are killed, which always amusing me since so many christians have no problem with a serial adulterer.

“²³ If there is a young woman, a virgin already engaged to be married, and a man meets her in the town and lies with her, ²⁴ you shall bring both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death, the young woman because she did not cry for help in the town and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.”

If a woman isn’t heard or has some reason not to scream, e.g. threatened, etc, she’ll be killed by men because of that. Funny how this christian didn’t mention that bit.

“²⁵ But if the man meets the engaged woman in the open country, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. ²⁶ You shall do nothing to the young woman; the young woman has not committed an offense punishable by death, because this case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor. ²⁷ Since he found her in the open country, the engaged woman may have cried for help, but there was no one to rescue her.”

then the woman isn’t murdered for not being virgin and not murdered for being raped since no one could here her. However….

²⁸ If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, ²⁹ the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.”

She’s forced to marry her rapist.

So, guys, would you like to be forced to marry *your* rapist?

“It would be an anachronism to assume a post 1960’s sexual revolution category of consent into this passage.  That said, even if you did it doesn’t do much for the judge who is using this law in old covenant Israel.  They will only have the presence or absence of any evidence corroborating claims that are being made after the fact and will primarily be focusing on adjudicating the sin of fornication, in which case rape would simply mean innocence on the part of the woman.“

Yep, a typical whine of a christian. Curious how they claim that their god doesn’t like rape (another lie), so why would it matter if it was before the “sexual revolution” or not? Isn’t this god unchanging? There is no evidence since yet again, women don’t always bleed if they are a virgin. This allowance for murder depends on ignorance.

“When you get down to it this isn’t that different than how a judge weighs out the law today.  Some categories of evidence and admissible,  some are not.  The judge is given categories and ranges of punishment and they work from there.  Even though our laws are not the same as those in the old covenant the style is similar in structure and application.  It’s entirely likely we got the fundamental ideas of our legal system from scripture anyways.”

Quite the complete lie. It’s so sweet when ignorant men aren’t limited to what they think happens with a woman’s body and it doesn’t. We didn’t get ideas for legal systems in the US from this ignorant bible. We got them from ancient greece, ancient sumeria, ancient england, etc.

“All I’m saying is if you’re going to criticize the Bible pick better stuff.  Things like this just make you look dumb.  Christians have spent the better part of two thousand years arguing over how to properly interpret some of the more complex teachings of scripture.  If you want some fodder of what to start with then start there, no need to re-invent the wheel.  At least then the conversation would be more interesting for both parties and you wouldn’t look silly in the process.”

All you are doing is making excuses for your vicoius and ignorant religion. Happily, the only one looking “dumb” here is the christain who tries to excuse his imaginary friend.